Rejecting Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter Logan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Logan

Guest
In the Gospels, Jesus said to Peter “… whatever you hold bound is held bound and whatever you declare loosed on earth will also be loosed in heaven.” (or something to that effect).

Would it be fair to say that those who reject Vatican II are going against what Jesus said here to Peter (and the Popes)?
 
I agree. I don’t understand how someone can be “Roman Catholic” and profess it, and then be in rebellion against an official proclamation of the Pope or encylical of the Bishops. While the Church is showing charity in addressing the split/rebellion, I dont suspect it will be tolerated indefinately.

Blessings,

Brian
 
Logan said:
In the Gospels, Jesus said to Peter “… whatever you hold bound is held bound and whatever you declare loosed on earth will also be loosed in heaven.” (or something to that effect).

Would it be fair to say that those who reject Vatican II are going against what Jesus said here to Peter (and the Popes)?
Click to expand...
  1. In the first place one to be Roman Catholic, one must understand and acknowledge the Pope as the successor of Peter…at Vatican Council II, many mainline Christian communities were also invited to sit-in the meetings.
  2. There is even a “Break away -Religious Community”, I came across once, that doe not acknowledge Vatican II. This is really unfortunate, and thus begins another scandal to Christianity. They are no different from "Buffet-Catholics/Christians).
  3. The number of different Christian communities, united; yet disagreeing of the interpretation of the Bible, is really a shame.
4 The Anglical Community (over gay Bishops, Ordination of women) are beginning to break up in various directions.

5 Once obedience to Authority, The Pope with his Magisterium is ignored…the problem begins…
 
I guess it would depend on what one means by “reject”. Taken at face value, I’d agree with the previous posts.

Perhaps a different term would be used if one didn’t necessarily agree with all the teachings 100%, but went along with them anyway. Something less than dissent…I can’t think of the proper term…maybe “respectful disagreement”🤷

Anyway, in that case, I wouldn’t say a definite yes.
 
Newbie2 said:
I guess it would depend on what one means by “reject”. Taken at face value, I’d agree with the previous posts.

Perhaps a different term would be used if one didn’t necessarily agree with all the teachings 100%, but went along with them anyway. Something less than dissent…I can’t think of the proper term…maybe “respectful disagreement”🤷

Anyway, in that case, I wouldn’t say a definite yes.
Click to expand...
One can disagree and still be obedient, however, there is still the obligation of the one who disagrees to do their best to conform their conscience to the the Wisdom of the Church. That can be a long process, but as long as the desire to understand is there, God will supply the grace. If someone obstinantly chooses to disagree and be complacent in that disagreement, that’s another story.
 
tm30 said:
One can disagree and still be obedient, however, there is still the obligation of the one who disagrees to do their best to conform their conscience to the the Wisdom of the Church. That can be a long process, but as long as the desire to understand is there, God will supply the grace. If someone obstinantly chooses to disagree and be complacent in that disagreement, that’s another story.
Click to expand...
Yes. That’s exactly what I was trying to say. 😃
 
I have the same problems with the Just War doctrine. I accept it, but have a lot of internal disagreement over, say, the Church’s discouragement of the war in Iraq. However, I’ve made an effort to read and understand the Wisdom in this, and I find that, little by little, my POV is conforming to the Church’s. It’s still a battle, but God keeps nudging me into a deeper understanding of what constitutes a “just” vs. “unjust” war.
 
I spent over a decade in a sedevacantist parish before coming home the the Catholic Church. A simplified justification for rejecting Vatican II and the current popes goes something like this.
  1. The Catholic Church cannot teach error on faith and morals when the pope is speaking infallibly.
  2. Thus, the Church cannot counterdict itself or teach heresy.
  3. Vatican II taught contrary to prior Church teaching, primarily in the areas of ecumenism and in the Sacred Liturgy( ie taught heresy)
  4. Therefore, Vatican Council II could not have been a valid council and the popes which support it are heretics and therefore not true popes.
Again, this is a simplified explanation of their position. My heart and prayers go out to these confused Catholics who are in error. The difficulty is that though they are in error, they believe they are preserving the true faith. The mass they celebrate is very beautiful and I pray that they will find their way home as I have. 😦
 
To appreciate the contents of Vatican II Proceedings

Types of Documents. ( In descending order of weightage)
Dogm. Const. = Dogmatic Constitution (relates to Belief)
Past. Const. = Pastoral Constitution (relates to practice)
Const. = Constitution
Decr. = Decree
Decl. = Declaration

Doc. Type
Title Ch Title

==============
1 Dog.Const.
The Church - Light of the World (Lumen Gentium)
1 Mystery

2 Dog. Const.
Divine Revelation – Word of God (Dei Verbum)
1 Mystery

3 Past. Const.
Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes).
2 People of God

4 Decr.
Missionary Activity (Ad Gentes Divinitus).
2 People of God

5 Decr.
Social Communication {(Inter Mirifica).
2 People of God

6 Decr.
Catholic Eastern Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum)
2 People of God

7 Decr.
Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio
2 People of God

8 Decl
Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae)
2 People of God

9 Decl.
Relationship of the Churchto Non-Christians Religions
(Nostra Aetate).
2 People of God

10 Decr.
Pastoral Mission of Bishops (Christus Dominus)
3 Hierarchy

11 Decr.
The Formationation of Priestly (Optatam Totius)
3 Hierarchy

12 Decr.
Ministry and Life of Priests (Presbyterosum Ordinis)
3 Hierarchy

13 Decr.
Lay Apostolate (Apostolicam Actuositatem)
4 Laity

14 Decl.
Christian Education (Gravissimum Educationis)
4 Laity

15 . Dog. Const.
Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium)
5 Holiness

16 Decr.
The Renewal of Religious Life (Perfectae Caritatisf)
6 Religious
7 Pilgrim Church
8 Mary

======================

• **Constitutions **o Dei Verbum
Lumen Gentium
Sacrosanctum Concilium
Gaudium et Spes

• **Declarations **o Gravissimum Educationis
Nostra Aetate
Dignitatis Humanae

• **Decrees **o Ad Gentes
Presbyterorum Ordinis
Apostolicam Actuositatem
Optatam Totius
Perfectae Caritatis
Christus Dominus
Unitatis Redintegratio
Orientalium Ecclesiarum
Inter Mirifica
 
Logan said:
In the Gospels, Jesus said to Peter “… whatever you hold bound is held bound and whatever you declare loosed on earth will also be loosed in heaven.” (or something to that effect).

Would it be fair to say that those who reject Vatican II are going against what Jesus said here to Peter (and the Popes)?
Click to expand...
Would it also be fair to say that BXVI is going against recent trends in the Church (perhaps based on Vat II), in that he seems to be encouraging the use of Latin and receiving Communion kneeling on the tongue?
 
I would say no to Mr. Fitzy. Basically the trends of Vatican 2 doesn’t mean that they follow what Vatican 2 say. You can take a concept from Vat. 2 and totally run the wrong way with it. Benedict has done nothing wrong in this regard.
 
Are you implying that the Church lost its way after Vat II and that B XVI is bringing it back on course?

…where was it stipulated in any Vatican II documentation that Divine Liturgy may not be celebrated in the language of the Mother Church and that the Host may not be received on the tongue while the recipient is in a kneeling posture…?
 
Would it also be fair to say that BXVI is going against recent trends in the Church (perhaps based on Vat II), in that he seems to be encouraging the use of Latin and receiving Communion kneeling on the tongue?

…also, kneeling on the tongue is very difficult…I don’t recomend attempting it during Mass…
 
Some of the “recent trends” are not to be found in VII but on a flawed understanding of VII. I would say B16 is actually returning the church to a correct interpretation and implementation of VII
 
drforjc said:
Some of the “recent trends” are not to be found in VII but on a flawed understanding of VII. I would say B16 is actually returning the church to a correct interpretation and implementation of VII
Click to expand...
Well said. Even a cursory reading of Church history suggests that a more or less constant and usually very loud discussion on issues of “correct interpretation and implementation”, is status quo.

It is only with a small corner of my tongue in cheek that I suggest that the marks of the Church might be, “One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Contentious”.

I have also noticed that we usually introduce a point of disagreement by denouncing the opposing party as a heretic or demonically possessed.

There is indeed nothing new under the sun. Thank you for your maturity and wisdom.

The Chancellor
 
I think among critiques of Vatican II, you have two camps:


  1. *]Those who think Vatican II was valid, but implemented badly, or used as an occasion to introduce all kinds of inovations.
    *]Those who think Vatican II is the cause of all the problems of the church today, and therefore invlad, and that it contradicts earlier decrees of the church.

    As a Catholic, you can hold position number 1 without any problems. But you cannot hold position number 2 without falling into dangerous ground.

    God bless,
    Ut
 
NoelFitz said:
RSF

Are you implying that the Church lost its way after Vat II and that B XVI is bringing it back on course?
Click to expand...
Not the Church, I would say members in the Church certainly did. And yes, I do believe B XVI is leading us back in the right direction, (though I can’t think of any recent pope who has lead us in the wrong direction).
 
utunumsint said:
I think among critiques of Vatican II, you have two camps:


  1. *]Those who think Vatican II was valid, but implemented badly, or used as an occasion to introduce all kinds of inovations.
    *]Those who think Vatican II is the cause of all the problems of the church today, and therefore invlad, and that it contradicts earlier decrees of the church.

    As a Catholic, you can hold position number 1 without any problems. But you cannot hold position number 2 without falling into dangerous ground.

    God bless,
    Ut
Click to expand...

  1. I fall into camp 1. I also think many of the problems of the Church in the US stem from the social impact of the '60s. Not even including V2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top